THE ITO-2(2), Bhopal V. SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY, Bhopal

ITA 391/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5725 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 148; 10; 139

Judgement Text

ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .../ I.T.A. NO. 391/IND/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2) BHOPAL :: / APPELLANT VS SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY BHOPAL PAN AJVPD 3854B :: ! / RESPONDENT '# $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED - DR '( $ % & / ASSESSEE BY SHRI SUMIT NEMA ) * $ (+ DATE OF HEARING 15.3 .2017 ,-./ $ (+ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 0 .3 .2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI C.M. GARG, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 30.3.2015 IN FI RST APPEAL NO.CIT(A)/BPL/IT-268/13-14 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUEAPPELLANT REA DS AS FOLLOWS :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A)-I HAS ERRED IN WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE VIEW THAT THE ASSES SMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 IS NOT A LEGALLY VALID I SSUED BY A NON-JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE ANNULLED. 3. THE FACTS, IN NUTSHELL, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE ACT (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ITO, WARD-2, SAGAR, RE CEIVED INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT O F RS.71,50,000/- IN KISAN VIKAS PATRA ON 31.3.2005 WI TH THE POST OFFICE, SAGAR CANTT., SAGAR, AND RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,10,34,595/- ON 9.5.2011 ON MATURITY OF THESE K ISAN VIKAS PATRAS AND THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACC OUNT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, GARHKOTA, SAGAR. THE ITO, WARD -2, SAGAR INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE A CT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE ACT ON 17.2.2012 AFTER RECORDING REASONS ON 1.2.2012 AND O BTAINING SATISFACTION OF THE JCIT, SAGAR RANGE, SAGAR. IN RE SPONSE TO THE ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 3 NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED R ETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE ITO, WARD-2, SAGAR, ON 2.7.2012 DECLARIN G NIL TAXABLE INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 28,22,000/- U NDER PROTEST. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE ITO, SAGAR, THAT HE WAS RESIDING AT BHOPAL AND HIS JURISDICTION VESTED WITH ITO 1(1), B HOPAL. THEREAFTER, THE ITO, WARD 2, SAGAR, TRANSFERRED THE RECORDS VIDE LETTER DATED 5.9.2012 TO ITO 1(1) BHOPAL. THE ITO 1 (1), BHOPAL CONTINUED WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUE D NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 4.10.2012. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ITO, BHOPAL, ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WITH DETAI LED QUESTIONNAIRES AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE AND MAKING INQUIRIES, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 5.3.2013 DETERMINING T AXABLE INCOME AT RS.71,50,000/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 50,00 0/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WAKE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE. ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 4 5. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE AND ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON LEGAL GROUND, THER EFORE, THE AGGRIEVED REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE CONCLUSION RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE GROUND AS REP RODUCED HEREINABOVE. 6. THE MAIN CRUX OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (IN SHORT LEARNED DR) IS THAT WHEN INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WAS MAD E BY THE ITO, SAGAR, BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THE SE PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO CONTINUED BY THE ITO, BHOPAL, BY ISSUING SUBSEQUENT NOTICES U/S 143(3) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT AT THE REQ UEST OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF THEN THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ITO, BHOPAL. PER CONTRA, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHEN THE ITO, SAGAR, HAS INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE WITH THE DIR ECTION AND APPROVAL OF THE JCIT, SAGAR, THEN WITHOUT AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE JURISDICTION TO ITO, BHOPAL, THE ITO, BHOPAL CANNOT ASSUME VALID JURISDICTION FOR FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN SUCH A CASE ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 5 THE REASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO BE TREATED AS PASSED WITHOUT HAVING VALID JURISDICTION. 7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION S, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 READ W ITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 5.3.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ITO, BHOPAL, IN CONTINUATION TO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ITO, SAGA R, ON TRANSFER OF ASSESSMENT RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE VI DE LETTER DATED 5.9.2012. FROM THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER I.E. PARA 3.15 TO 3.24, WE OBSERVE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND ITAT INCLUDI NG THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI, IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S INDUS VALLEY INVESTMENT & FINANCE P. LTD. DATED 6.7.2012 IN ITA NO. 4239/DEL/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WHERE IN THE TRIBUNAL, UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 6 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETHER THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO I.E ITO WARD-11(4),NEW DELHI, IN P URSUANCE TO A NOTICE DATED 31.03.2008 U/S 148 OF THE ACT, ISSUED BY INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GURGAON, WHO DID NOT HAVE JURISDICT ION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS VALID ONE. A MERE GLANCE A T THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS REVEALS THAT SECTION 147 AUTHORIZES AND PERMITS THE AO TO ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IF HE H AS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE WORD 'REASON' IN THE PHRASE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION. IF THE AO HAS CAUSE OR JUSTIF ICATION TO KNOW OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESS MENT. THE REASON TO BELIEVE MUST BE THAT OF THE CONCERNED AO ,HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, WHO HAS RELEVANT RETURNS AND OTHER MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION. SECTION 148(1) OF THE ACT ENVISAGES THAT BEFORE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOM PUTATION U/S 147, THE AO SHALL SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE RE QUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS 9 ITA NO.4239/DEL./2011 ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANN ER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDIN GLY AS IF SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 . SUB SECTION (2) PROVIDES THAT THE AO SHALL, BEFORE ISSUING ANY NOTICE UNDER THIS SECTION, RECORD HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO. IT IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ,WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDS REASONS, WHO CAN ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT CONSENT CANNOT CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THE AO NOR WAIVER BY THE AS SESSEE[ CIT V. RAMSUKH MOTILAL [1955] 27 ITR 54( BOM.) 5.1 IN THE INSTANT CASE, INDISPUTABLY ITO WARD-11(4 ),NEW DELHI HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE ASSES SEE IS FILING RETURN IN THAT WARD REGULARLY. THE ITO WARD-2,GURGA ON,WHO DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM DIT(INVESTIGATION) THAT THE ASSESSEE ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 7 WAS IN RECEIPT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. AS SOON AS THE ASSESSEE INFORMED HIM THAT JURISDICTION OVER HIS CASE WAS VES TED WITH ITO WARD-11(4),NEW DELHI, RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO N EW DELHI. THEREAFTER, THE SAID ITO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT EVEN RECORDING REASONS TO BELIEVE STIPULATE D IN SECTION 147 OR ISSUING ANY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. AS MENTIO NED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT, THE ITO WARD 11(4),NEW DELHI NEV ER ISSUED ANY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT .THUS ,HE DID NOT ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN WHEN ORIGI NAL RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ``37,440/- WAS FILED ON 22.10.2 002 BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WARD. APPARENTLY, THE ITO WARD 11(4 ),NEW DELHI COMMITTED AN IRREGULARITY BY NOT ISSUING NOTICE U/S . 148 OF THE ACT AGAIN AND INSTEAD CONTINUED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 14 8 OF THE ACT, INITIATED ON 31.3.2008 BY THE ITO WARD- 2,GURGAON. THIS WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 3-12-2 008. APPARENTLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL AO I.E. ITO, WARD-11(4),NEW DELHI NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION TO RE-ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT NOR EVER RECORDED THE REASONS IN WRITING AS STIPULATED IN THE SAID SECTION. THE 10 ITA NO.4239/DEL./2011 REAS ONS FOR REOPENING OF ANY ASSESSMENT HAVE TO BE RECORDED BY JURISDICTIONAL AO ALONE BECAUSE HE MAINTAINS THE RELEVANT AND PRIM ARY RECORDS. THE BASIC REQUIREMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS THAT TH E AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT. SUCH BELIEF CAN BE OF JURISDICTIONAL AO ALONE AND NO T OF ANY OTHER AO OR AUTHORITY. REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT WERE HELD TO BE INVALID IN CIT V. T. R. RAJKUMARI [1973] 96 ITR 78 (MAD.) & SHEO NARAIN JASWAL & ORS. V. ITO & ORS . [1989] 176 ITR 352 (PAT.). HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CIT V. A. RAMAN & CO ., [1968] 67 ITR 1 (SC) OBSERVED THAT WHETHER ON TH E INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION HE SHOULD COMMENCE A PROCEEDING FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MUST BE DECIDED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFI CER AND NOT BY THE HIGH COURT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ALONE IS ENT RUSTED WITH THE POWER TO ADMINISTER THE ACT; IF HE HAS INFORMATION FROM WHICH IT MAY BE SAID, PRIMA FACIE, THAT HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE HIGH COURT, EXERCISING POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE THE NOTICE FOR REASSESSMENT ON A RE APPRAISAL OF THE ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 8 EVIDENCE. THE ITO REFERRED TO HEREIN IS ,ITO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ANY OTHER ITO. IT IS WELL-SETT LED THAT IF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT THE JURISDICTIONAL FOUNDATION U/S 147 OF THE ACT BEING A VAILABLE TO THE AO, THE NOTICE AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WILL BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS, LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN . IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. CONSEQUENT LY, GROUND NO1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS A VERY WELL SETTLED LEG AL POSITION THAT IF A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY ONE AS SESSING OFFICER AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT THE JURISDICTIO N OVER HIS CASE WAS VESTED WITH ANOTHER ITO AND RECORDS WERE TRANSF ERRED TO THAT ANOTHER ITO AND THEREAFTER THE SAID ITO PROCEEDED T O COMPLETE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT EVEN RECORDING REA SONS TO BELIEVE, AS REQUIRED U/S 147 OF THE ACT, OR ISSUE A NY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT THEN IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE SUBSEQUE NT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ASSUME VALID JURISDICTION TO REASSE SS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT. THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SUCH BELIEF CAN BE ONLY OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT OF ANY OTHER ASSESSING OF FICER OR AUTHORITY ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 9 WHO INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUED N OTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT THE CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CONFER VALID JUR ISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR WAIVER OF RIGHT OF THE AS SESSEE TO OBJECT CONFER VALID JURISDICTION TO FRAME REASSESSMENT ORD ER. HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE CONCLUSION RECORDED BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS FIRST LEGAL ISSUE IS QUITE CORRECT AND JUST IFIED AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND WE HOLD THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS RIGHT IN ANNULLING TH E REASSESSMENT ORDER AS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 9. THE NEXT LEGAL ISSUE POSED BY THE LEARNED DR IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ANNULLING THE A SSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ITO, BHOPAL, HAS INITIATED REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE WITH TH E DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE LEARNED CIT AND REASSESSMENT IN SUCH A CASE HAS TO BE TREATED AS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 10 ON THE SECOND LEGAL GROUND BY PICKING UP LAST LINE OF THE REASONS RECORDED AND HE HAS IGNORED THE DETAILED REASONS RE CORDED BY THE ITO, SAGAR, FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DES ERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 10. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PLACING RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CHUNNILAL ONKARMAL PVT. LTD.; 139 ITR 380 (MP), SUB MITTED THAT THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT TO REASSESS THE PARTNER IN THE STATUS OF AOP OR BODY OF INDIVIDUALS IS NOT VALID. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT FROM THE LAST LINE OF REA SONS RECORDED, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ITO, SAGAR, HAS RECORDED REASONS ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE JCIT, SAGAR, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN ANNULLING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS COUNT. ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 11 11. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RIVAL SUB MISSIONS, WE OBSERVE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- THE POWER TO TAKE ACTION IN RESPECT OF ESCAPED INC OME U/S 147 OF THE ACT VESTS EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS IF THE CONDITIONS US 147 OF THE ACT EXI STS. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T.R. RAJAK UMARI (1974) 96 ITR 78 (MAD.) HELD THAT INITIATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS INV ALID. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SHEO NARAYANJAISWAL VS. IT O (1989) 176 ITR 352 (PATNA) IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER EXERCISED JURISDICTION U/S 147 ASSESSMENT THE BEHEST OF ANY SUPERIOR AUTHORITY, IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF JURISDICTION WAS BAD IN LAW. THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHU NNILAL ONKARMAL (P) LTD. VS. ITO (1983) 139 ITR 389 (M.P.) ALSO OBSERVED THAT DISCRETION OR JUDGMENT TO BE EXERCISE D U/S ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 12 147 MUST BE EXERCISED BY THE A.O. WHERE ITO INITIAT ED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT PURSUANCE OF DIRECTION ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER, THE REASSESSMENT IN SUCH A CASE HAD TO BE TREATED AS WITHOUT JURISDICTI ON AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, ON T HIS ACCOUNT ALSO, THE REASONS RECORDED U/S 148 OF THE A CT BY ITO, WARD-2, SAGAR, WERE ALSO INVALID. 12. FROM THE ABOVE WE DECLINE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENT ION OF THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED REA SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AT HIS OWN BY APPLICATION OF MIND TO TH E FACTS AND MATERIAL CAME TO HIS NOTICE, AS WHEN WE ANALYZE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ITO, SAGAR, IN TOTALITY THEN IT IS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE THAT THE ITO, SAGAR, AFTER MENTIONING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NOTED IN THE LAST OF THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THE JCIT, SAG AR, VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.1.2012 HAS DIRECTED HIM TO SE ND PROPOSAL FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.THEREFOR E, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXE RCISED THE JURISDICTION AVAILABLE TO HIM U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE DIRECTIONS OF ANY SUPERIOR AUTHORITY THEN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS U/S 147 ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 13 OF THE ACT, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THE REASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE THERETO, ARE BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. OUR CON CLUSION ALSO GETS STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CHUNNILAL ONKARMAL PVT. LTD., (SUPRA). 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON T HIS COUNT AND THUS WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE SOLE GROUND OF REVENUE, BEING DE VOID OF MERIT, IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED ON BOTH THE COUNTS. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20 TH MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- &+ # # (O.P.MEENA) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MARCH 20 TH , 2017. DN/ ITO VS. SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY ITA NO. 391/IND/2015 14